Abstract
Background, aim, and scope
Uncertainty information is essential for the proper use of life cycle assessment (LCA) and environmental assessments in decision making. So far, parameter uncertainty propagation has mainly been studied using Monte Carlo techniques that are relatively computationally heavy to conduct, especially for the comparison of multiple scenarios, often limiting its use to research or to inventory only. Furthermore, Monte Carlo simulations do not automatically assess the sensitivity and contribution to overall uncertainty of individual parameters. The present paper aims to develop and apply to both inventory and impact assessment an explicit and transparent analytical approach to uncertainty. This approach applies Taylor series expansions to the uncertainty propagation of lognormally distributed parameters.
Materials and methods
We first apply the Taylor series expansion method to analyze the uncertainty propagation of a single scenario, in which case the squared geometric standard deviation of the final output is determined as a function of the model sensitivity to each input parameter and the squared geometric standard deviation of each parameter. We then extend this approach to the comparison of two or more LCA scenarios. Since in LCA it is crucial to account for both common inventory processes and common impact assessment characterization factors among the different scenarios, we further develop the approach to address this dependency. We provide a method to easily determine a range and a best estimate of (a) the squared geometric standard deviation on the ratio of the two scenario scores, “A/B”, and (b) the degree of confidence in the prediction that the impact of scenario A is lower than B (i.e., the probability that A/B<1). The approach is tested on an automobile case study and resulting probability distributions of climate change impacts are compared to classical Monte Carlo distributions.
Results
The probability distributions obtained with the Taylor series expansion lead to results similar to the classical Monte Carlo distributions, while being substantially simpler; the Taylor series method tends to underestimate the 2.5% confidence limit by 1-11% and the 97.5% limit by less than 5%. The analytical Taylor series expansion easily provides the explicit contributions of each parameter to the overall uncertainty. For the steel front end panel, the factor contributing most to the climate change score uncertainty is the gasoline consumption (>75%). For the aluminum panel, the electricity and aluminum primary production, as well as the light oil consumption, are the dominant contributors to the uncertainty. The developed approach for scenario comparisons, differentiating between common and independent parameters, leads to results similar to those of a Monte Carlo analysis; for all tested cases, we obtained a good concordance between the Monte Carlo and the Taylor series expansion methods regarding the probability that one scenario is better than the other.
Discussion
The Taylor series expansion method addresses the crucial need of accounting for dependencies in LCA, both for common LCI processes and common LCIA characterization factors. The developed approach in Eq. 8, which differentiates between common and independent parameters, estimates the degree of confidence in the prediction that scenario A is better than B, yielding results similar to those found with Monte Carlo simulations.
Conclusions
The probability distributions obtained with the Taylor series expansion are virtually equivalent to those from a classical Monte Carlo simulation, while being significantly easier to obtain. An automobile case study on an aluminum front end panel demonstrated the feasibility of this method and illustrated its simultaneous and consistent application to both inventory and impact assessment. The explicit and innovative analytical approach, based on Taylor series expansions of lognormal distributions, provides the contribution to the uncertainty from each parameter and strongly reduces calculation time.
Similar content being viewed by others
Notes
Strictly, the geometric standard deviation of the output distribution y of scenario A should have been called \( {\hbox{GS}}{{\hbox{D}}_{{y_A}}} \). To avoid multiple complex indices, we used a simplified notation without explicitly mentioning the y, implicitly meaning that \( {\hbox{GS}}{{\hbox{D}}_A} = {\hbox{GS}}{{\hbox{D}}_{{y_A}}} \),GSD B = GSD B and \( {\hbox{GS}}{{\hbox{D}}_{B/A}} = {\hbox{GS}}{{\hbox{D}}_{{y_{A/B}}}} \).
The factors 1.77 and 2.0 were chosen to result in similar values of GSD2 on the output for each single scenario.
References
Ashby MF (1992) Materials selection in mechanical design. Pergamon, Oxford
Charles R (2004) Modelling pesticides residues. PhD Thesis 3123, Ecole Polytechnique Fédérale de Lausanne. (EPFL), CH-1015 Lausanne, Switzerland (http://library.epfl.ch/en/theses/?nr=3123).
Ciroth A, Fleischer G, Steinbach J (2004) Uncertainty calculation in life cycle assessments—a combined model of simulation and approximation. Int J LCA 9(4):216–226
Frischknecht R, Jungbluth N, Althaus HJ, Doka G, Dones R, Heck T, Hellweg S, Hischier R, Nemecek T, Rebitzer G, Spielmann M (2005) The ecoinvent database: overview and methodological framework. Int J LCA 10(1):3–9
Heijungs R (2002) The use of matrix perturbation theory for addressing sensitivity and uncertainty issues in LCA. Proceedings of The Fifth International Conference on EcoBalance—practical tools and thoughtful principles for sustainability. The Society of Non-traditional Technology, Tokyo, Japan
Heijungs R, Frischknecht R (2005) Representing statistical distributions for uncertain parameters in LCA. Relationships between mathematical forms, their representation in EcoSpold, and their representation in CMLCA. Int J LCA 10(4):248–254
Heijungs R, Suh S (2002) The computational structure of life cycle assessment. Kluwer, Dordrecht
Heijungs R, Suh S, Kleijn R (2005) Numerical approaches to life cycle interpretation—the case of the ecoinvent ‘96 database. Int J LCA 10(2):103–112
Heijungs R, Jolliet O, Rosenbaum R, Ciroth A, McKone T, Lenzen M, Hong J, Freire F (2009) Sampling and analytical approaches toward propagating uncertainties in LCA. Life Cycle Assessment IX 'toward the global life cycle economy' Boston,USA. September 29th–October 2nd. http://www.lcacenter.org/LCA9/presentations/Uncertainty-Heijungs.pdf
Hertwich EG, McKone TE, Pease WS (1999) Parameter uncertainty and variability in evaluative fate and exposure models. Risk Anal 19(6):1193–1204
Hertwich EG, McKone TE, Pease WS (2000) A systematic uncertainty analysis of an evaluative fate and exposure model. Risk Anal 20(4):439–454
Huijbregts MAJ, Gilijamse W, Ragas AMJ, Reijnders L (2003) Evaluating uncertainty in environmental life-cycle assessment a case study comparing two insulation options for a Dutch one-family dwelling. Environ Sci Technol 37(11):2600–2608
IPCC (2007) Climate change 2007 the physical science basis, fourth assessment report. Intergovernmental panel on climate change. Cambridge University Press
Jolliet O, Margni M, Humbert S, Rebitzer G, Rosenbaum R (2003) Impact 2002+: a new life cycle impact assessment methodology. Int J LCA 8(6):324–330
Korn G, Korn T (1968) Mathematical handbook for scientist and engineers, 2nd edn. McGraw-Hill, New York
MacLeod M, Fraser A, Mackay D (2002) Evaluating and expressing the propagation of uncertainty in chemical fate and bioaccumulation models. Environ Toxicol Chem 21:700–709
Morgan MG, Henrion M (1990) Uncertainty: a guide dealing with uncertainty in quantitative risk and policy analysis. Cambridge University, Cambridge
Pollard JH (1979) A handbook of numerical and statistical techniques: with examples mainly from the life sciences. CUP Archive, ISBN 0521297508
Renard H, Meillassoux D, Trassaert P (1994) In ‘Proc. JEC'94’, Paris
Rosenbaum R, Pennington DW, Jolliet O (2004) An implemented approach for estimating uncertainties for toxicological impact characterisation. In Pahl-Wostl C, Schmidt S, Rizzoli AE, Jakeman AJ (eds) Complexity and integrated resources management, transactions of the 2nd biennial meeting of the international environmental modelling and software society, iEMSs: Manno, Switzerland, 2004. ISBN 88-900787-1-5
Rosenbaum RK (2006) Multimedia and food chain modelling of toxics for comparative risk and life cycle impact assessment. Ph.D. Thesis, Ecole Polytechnique Fédérale de Lausanne (EPFL), Lausanne, Switzerland, p 192
Shapiro SS, Wilk MB (1965) An analysis of variance test for normality (complete samples). Biometrika 52(3 and 4):591–611
Steen B (1997) On uncertainty and sensitivity of LCA-based priority setting. J Clean Prod 5(4):255–262
Young SB, Vanderburg WH (1994) Applying environmental life-cycle analysis to materials. JOM 46:22–27
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Additional information
Responsible Editor: Andreas Ciroth
Electronic supplementary material
Below is the link to the electronic supplementary material.
ESM 1
(DOC 2,165 kb)
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Hong, J., Shaked, S., Rosenbaum, R.K. et al. Analytical uncertainty propagation in life cycle inventory and impact assessment: application to an automobile front panel. Int J Life Cycle Assess 15, 499–510 (2010). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11367-010-0175-4
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11367-010-0175-4